"Global warming phase" – a time period of decent length (compared to a human lifespan) where the average global temperature increases. Over the course of this phase, average temperatures may fluctuate up and down, but the statistical trend is upward (example seen here [1]). In order to qualify, one must be able to extrapolate from the data that the average temperature will continue to increase over the next several decades (pending no action taken to prevent the current trend). So cherry picking data points to say "100 million years ago, it was warmer than now, so we are on a cooling trend" would need to be able to be shown as statistically accurate (i.e. not just two data points).

The BoP will be on me show the warming, while my opponent needs to either show cooling, or refute all evidence of warming.

Standard rules apply. No semantics, etc. My opponent is free to begin in R1, or pass and allow me to begin in R2.

Last year NASA said, "According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age…"

The report also said;

“The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.”

and

“Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”

According to many scientists, Earth is in a current "cold mode" and will see temperatures fall over the next 30 years as the world enters a "mini ice age."

They say;"A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”

Global Warming Alarmists focus on Surface Temperature readings, which are highly inaccurate because they are subject to the Heat Island Effect.

The Heat Island Effect is the tendency of urban and suburban areas to be warmer than adjacent rural areas. In the United States, such built environments are 2 to 10°F warmer-a function of less vegetation, reduced airflow, and large areas of roofs, asphalt, concrete, and paved surfaces that absorb the sun’s heat.

I thank my opponent for a quick R1 on his part. Normally, I would break my argument into two parts, the first to counter his arguments, and the second to present my own. However, in this case, much of the counters to his arguments and graphs feed into my arguments. So instead, I will present my argument and tie it to his when they come to that point. I will then present a short section to refute the remaining parts of his argument that are not dealt with by my own argument.

The warming of the Earth.

The first thing that one needs to do is first look to see if the earth temperatures appear to be warming or not. There are several ways to try to calculate this, from surface temp readings, to ocean borehole readings, to satellite readings, etc. As such we will take a look at two of these.

1) Surface Temp readings
My opponent starts by showing some pictures and claiming that they are surface temp reading stations. However, nothing in the pictures indicates that claim, nor does my opponent provide any information as to what stations these are. As such, these pictures are absolutely unverifiable as they stand. I would request that my opponent let us know what stations these are and for what measuring institute so that they can be double checked and verified.

My opponent goes on to also point to the Heat Island Effect [1]. According to the EPA, "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4�F (1–3�C) warmer than its surroundings." Turning to CityMayors.com [2], we can see that there are only 410 cities in the entire world with populations over 1 million and only 9 of those cities are in the USA [3]. This represents only a small number of ground sensors compared to how many are actually used. Even though my opponent believes that this causes a false reading for heat, he is mistaken. The heat that accumulates due to heat islands is real heat on the Earth, and as such, should be taken note of. Of course, if you only sample heat island, then you are not getting an accurate representation and so inaccurate data. This will be easy enough to see, since if that was the case, we would see a difference from the other measuring sources.

Now to show the actual temp readings.

Since these are still in question for accuracy, let us move to the next measuring source.

2) Satellite temp readings
My opponent admitted that satellites are accurate temp readers, "To avoid the Heat Island Effect it's best to use Weather Balloons or Satellites." So let us take a simple look at these. First, I'd like to point out that my opponent's graph is horribly misleading. Temp changes of a single degree Celsius are significant differences, however, he uses a graph with a Y-axis range of 30 degrees and no axis lines in an attempt to hide any growth. Here, you can go right to the source [4] and look at the graphs any way you wish.

In the graph below, we go ahead and combine satellite temp readings from two different measuring techniques along with the surface temps, all onto one nice simple graph (sadly, satellites only go back to the 80's, so we don't have as much history with these as we do with the surface readings).

This clearly shows that the surface readings match pretty darn closely the satellite readings, and so we can conclude that the heat island effect has no real effect on the total measuring process at all. Let us look at another chart which also compiles multiple readings, including borehole readings.

From these, it is easy enough to notice that we are in a warming phase. Please note that this has nothing to say about it being man-made, or even not part of a natural cycle (that can be a later debate if we wish).

Now, I will address some of the graphs that by opponent tossed up after his last sentence. I will simply refer to them as graphs 1-8 based on their vertical position. Since my opponent added no commentary, nor explanation for these graphs, I will do the best that I can. Some of them I have tried to look up to find their original sources and for some, no source could be found.

Graphs 1 and 2

These two appear to show the temp coming back down. However, it is important to note the site that they came from [5]. It turns out, that our satellite temp readings can read the temp at 4 different levels. At these levels satellites have found that 2 of them (surface and upper troposphere) are warming a good deal, the lower troposphere is only slightly warming and the lower stratosphere is actually cooling. What my opponent has done is selectively only shown the data that supports his case and ignored the rest.

"'I think it points out that the atmosphere is more complex than the computer models currently simulate,' says Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC) at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. ‘However, it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future.'

Spencer and Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are trying to account for the unexpected temperature patterns. By explaining the contrary behavior of atmospheric and surface-level temperature trends, they hope to improve computer models used to simulate the world's climate. This would provide a better picture of how severe or mild global warming will be over the next century.

A stronger-than-usual warming trend in 1998-99 was associated with a strong El Ni�o event, while the slight cooling in 1999-2000 coincides with the ongoing La Ni�a phase. The overall trend in the lower tropospheric data is approximately steady: the temperature increases by approximately +0.047oC per decade."

When you have the actual scientists talk about their own data, it still points to a warming, just not as strong of a warming as on the surface.

Graph 3.

This shows the strong El Nino (as mentioned in [5]) of the 98 – 99 year, which then drops into a La Nina (also mentioned in [5]). This is followed by some warming, and then a drop in the 2008 year. This 2008 is another La Nina [6]. As it was pointed out in [5], atmospheric temps are more influenced by the El Ninos and La Ninas.

Graph 4.

I cannot find a source for this (what is "DMI"?), however the graph itself says that it is only for the 80+N arctic zone, which is cherry picking data and so not an accurate representation of the average global temp.

Graph 5.

This one has absolutely no info for me to even try to find a source. Normally, I'd like to simply say that this shows warming, so it is agreeing with my side of the debate, but proper sourcing is far more important.

Graph 6.

This is a graph for the temp for thermocouples, not global temp.

Graphs 7 and 8

These graphs show a time frame too small to matter. As mentioned in R1, the temp can go up and down, but the trend is what matters. My opponent takes a 6 year chunk (2002 – 2008) and attempts to show that we are cooling. However, if you take 2000 – 2006, that chunk would show that we are warming, a lot. As such, the data is too small to get an accurate reading. The larger data ranges that I have provided show much more clearly the actual trend of warming.

My oppoenent's source (http://www.epa.gov...) states "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C)"Thus the difference according to his sources can be as high as 22°F, not 5.4°F as he claims.

My opponent asked for a source to where I got the surfacestation pictures

I will also like to point out that 2 of the 3 charts my opponent used is 11 years out of date, and the other chart used is 6 years out of date.

The 2 that are 11 years out of date emphisises the El Nino of the late 90's, while the one that is 6 years out of date ignores the recent dip shown in my charts.

This is typical of all charts presented by Global Warming Alarmists. They either crop the dates, or cook the books.

Notice how my opponent's UAH chart stops in 2005

.

If continued it would show a drop, after 07.

If you look ay Tree ring Data from 1982-2006, you would see a decline in temperature after the year 2000, and again after 2005.

Illustration 1. An example of dating via tree rings. The trunk shown schematically on the right was cut down in 2006.Its trunk shows alternating light rings, showing rapid spring and summer growth, and dark rings forming during the slow winter growth. The rings are dated consecutively and show that the tree was planted in 1989. In 2003 the tree grew only slightly and the light ring is narrow; thus, too, in the years 1994-1996. The tree on the left was found on the ground, but comparing the thickness of rings to those of the tree on the right shows the sane three thin rings. Based on this correlation we can determine when the second tree was planted and when it was cut down (1982-2000) and the continued notation of better and worse years backwards in time.

I thank my opponent for posting his round. First, I will address his comments, then I will point out the un-contended points that I made last round. This will be broken into numbers to make it easier to follow.

1)"Thus the difference according to his sources can be as high as 22�F, not 5.4�F as he claims."

I would ask all readers and my opponent to re-read the quote that my opponent pulled out. While it does say "In the evening, the difference can be as high as 12 degrees C." It should be noted that this is an extreme difference at only a single point. It clearly says "the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C." Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters, the rest is just a red herring.

2)My opponent's pictures

I am a little puzzled at why my opponent would source a link that is so clearly bias (referring to the [1]) when he also links to surfacestations.org which where all the pictures originate from [2]. I will venture a guess that it is because the first link is presenting these pictures as if they are a random sampling and thus accurate representations of surface stations, while surfacestations.org calls them "odd sites," which is a list of only the most severe cases of temperature contamination. My opponent then links to a map, claiming that it proves that many of the sites are "contaminated." It should be noted that these errors are based on plus or minus, and not just plus. As such, some of the stations may be getting error reading the other direction, and surfacestations.org (being an honest site), considers all issues, not just the ones that raise temperature.

One of the requirements is that the station not be in shade when the sun is greater than 3 degrees. If the sensor is in shade when the sun is greater than 5 degrees, it automatically receives an error of 3 (between 3 and 5 degrees is an automatic 2). This particular error would cause a drop in the recorded temp. I will go more into this when I get to the unaddressed points.

3)"I will also like to point out that 2 of the 3 charts my opponent used is 11 years out of date"

I find this odd for my opponent to make, since in the first round, he also used charts that stopped at 2000 and 2005. This seems like a double standard, however, only one of my charts is out 11 years, one is out 6, and one is out 3. The one that is out three, my opponent claims is out 11, because the x-axis stops at 2000, however that data continues until 2008.

4)"This is typical of all charts presented by Global Warming Alarmists. They either crop the dates, or cook the books."

This is a Red Herring and Poisoning the Well fallacy. I am not a global warming alarmist and this debate is not about any negative consequences of global warming (so there is nothing to be "alarmed" about, as far as this debate is concerned). Now, if I starting talking about increasing hurricanes and droughts and whatnots, then my opponent may make that claim, but until then, it has no part what so ever in this debate.

I will address the "cropping of dates" in my "un-refuted" section, since this is actually what my opponent is doing.

5)"If you look ay Tree ring Data from 1982-2006, you would see a decline in temperature after the year 2000, and again after 2005."

This is faulty data. Tree rings do not give direct measurements of temperature, but of growing conditions. Notice that the chart that he gives has the y-axis of "width of rings." In too hot of environments, trees will not grow, other factors are rainfall, and cloud cover. Temperature is merely one component, and it is not a complete direct correlation. If we also go to the site of the link, we will see that it has nothing to do with temperature, and is actually using the tree rings as a form of dating measurement, not temperature measurement.

Now to address the many un-refuted and un-challenged points of my last round and how they impact my opponent's arguments.

1) La Nina of 2008

This is probably the biggest single dropped point that my opponent leaves. My opponent claims that I am cropping dates to paint a bias picture. However, in my argument, I pointed out the 98-99 El Nino (refer to my section talking about his "graph 3" in this source [3]), I also pointed out that it was followed by a La Nina, and that there was another La Nina in 2008 [4]. No of this my opponent contended. His data, (which conveniently end in 2008) shows the temp drop from the La Nina, and he is attempting to draw from that, that we are in a cooling phase. He also is using a chart from only 1 atmospheric range, which was addressed in [3] (and un-refuted by my opponent), that El Ninos and La Ninas effect the atmospheric temps more than surface temps. So the effect of the 2008 La Nina is exaggerated in his graphs.

We even see, looking at it, that it clearly shows that the 2001 – 2007 range is greatly warmer (remember that the drop at the end is not from global cooling, but from the La Nina), so his own graph is agreeing with my side of the debate.

2)Atmospheric temps line up with surface temps

Another aspect completely dropped by my opponent is that over the last decades, surface temp and atmospheric temp have been very closely aligned. This means that while some ground stations may have "contaminations" they are not having any significant effect, and the contamination from heating, is significantly offset by contamination of cooling. Since my opponent has already stated (and continues to support) that satellite temps are accurate, this shows that surface temps are also fairly accurate.

3)Atmosphere is complex, but still warming

I brought up last round that the atmosphere is measured in 4 zones, and that 3 of these 4 zones are showing warmth (with 1 of the 3 warming only slightly warming). This was brought up because of the selective graphs that my opponent has been using. Rather than address this, he continues to use graphs that only address 1 portion of the atmosphere (namely the ones that give him the results he wants).

In conclusion my opponent has flooded this debate with a great number of graphs, several of which have absolutely nothing to do with this debate, and the rest being selective in their data. None of the criticisms that were levied against his first round graphs were addressed except for providing locations for the pictures.

My opponent claims, " It clearly says 'the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C.' Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters"

This is irrelevant, we are not talking about a mean error, we are talking about a mean temperature change, which the heat island effect throws off. The average heat island effect means nothing, it's the errors that are throwing off the readings.

Using the pie chart from my last round we see that the average Error is over 2°C, which is poor, with 6.2% having an error of more than 5°C. Under 1°C is good, and under 2°C is fair. Only 7.9% of surface temperature readings are unusable, and the other 92.1% are worthless.

Further more my opponent's source did not give an accurate Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion.

My opponent said, "The one that is out three, my opponent claims is out 11, because the x-axis stops at 2000, however that data continues until 2008."

I will give him that, but sadly part of the chart is over 2°C off.

4.)

The drop after 2007 is not just a La Nina, the resaon for cooling and warming is envirmental. When the climate starts warming, it's due to a increase in solar activity.When the climate starts cooling it's due to an increase in volcanic activity, and a decease in solar activity, which has been frequent lately.

Climatologist Cliff Harris & Meteorologist Randy Mann created a chart showing that we are currently in a cooling period which they suspect will reach it's peak in 2019, afterwards it will begin to get warmer again.

5.)

My opponent claims, "Atmospheric temps line up with surface temps"

This is wrong, and my above chart comparison proves this.

6.)

My opponent claims I was selecting graphs, and claimed this was a "Atmosphere is complex"

My opponent obviouslly didn't look at my 1st 2 graphs, in which I identified the different trends between the Tropospheric temperatures and the Stratospheric Temperatures.

If I was to use Stratospheric tempatures my charts would be much colder than they currently are.

7.)

The reason I did not adress everything my opponent has said, was because his arguement was so disorganized and jumbled it was hard to adress everything in order, without degrading the quality of the debate. I find Quality is better than Quantity.

8.)

My opponent claims my graphs have nothing to do with the debate. He is wrong, my maps show a cooling trent, after a stacis trend.

Further more, contrary to popular belief the Glaciers are increasing in overall mass by ~5cm per year , while decreasing in area due to warm coastal waters.

The reason why the ice is decreasing in Area despite increasing in mass, is because of the Thermohaline Circulation.

Now back to my above graph, which explains climate change.

As you can see Climate change is caused by low Solar activity, and high volcanic activity.

I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. Since this is the last round, no new evidence should be presented. However, due to my opponent bringing up brand new arguments in R3, rather than R1 when he started, I have to be able to fully address them. For those arguments that have been going on since the beginning, I will only lightly touch and will only source links that I have already sourced in previous rounds (for arguments just brought to the debate last round, I will have to present new sources). I will also include a summary at the end.

1) Heat Island effect

Since we are talking about average global temperatures, the average temperature error is what matters. Just like a high temp or a low temp of a single day or night is not important, neither is a single day of the Heat Island effect. We are talking about annual trends.

2)Error margin.

My opponent claims that the error is over 2 degrees, however, this is a per station error and it is only an estimate. It is also the case that the error range is + or -, so if one errors +2 degrees and another errors -2 degrees, they balance out. This is what we see when comparing to satellite readings (already presented in R2 and R3).

3)C to F conversion.

My opponent must surely see his own error in this. He says "2�C = 35.6�F… So the average error is greater than 35.6�F." This is horribly inaccurate, because degrees C and degrees F have different zero points. A 2 C variance is only 3.6 F difference. The equation is F = 1.8*C + 32. The "+ 32" is to compensate for the different zero point.

4)"but sadly part of the chart is over 2�C off."

This is not the case because of the averages. As shown back in 2) if one station is off by +2 and one is off by -2, they combine to be off by 0. Unless every single station is off in the positive amount, they would likely average out to a degree.

5)The lower graph here.

This is the second time my opponent has brought this graph up. I mentioned in R2, "This one has absolutely no info for me to even try to find a source. Normally, I'd like to simply say that this shows warming, so it is agreeing with my side of the debate, but proper sourcing is far more important."

My opponent did not refute this, nor provide any additional backup for this graph in his R2 response. And even in R3, he STILL has not provided a source or any indication of what this graph is. However, we know for a fact that it is not satellite temp readings because this chart goes back to about 1905, and we did not have satellites that would measure temp until the 70's. However, since no indication has been given for what this graph is, and my opponent has had plenty of opportunity to do so, it must be ignored.

6)La Nina

My opponent, in past rounds, has placed the blame of warming entirely on the shoulders of El Nino (he did so in R1 and in R2). However, with no source to back him up, he claims that the temporary cooling is more than just La Nina. This is a case of special pleading and double standards. My opponent then goes on to show a chart, however, it is really just an illustration, as it has no units, no data points, and nothing to fact check.

7)Atmospheric Temps line up with Surface temps.

My opponent claims that his "above chart comparison proves this [wrong]." If he is referring to this comparison…

It has already been addressed. There is no source, no link, no nothing for it. He has been asked since R2 to provide sources and explanations for graphs, but has failed to do so.

8)Irrelevant graphs

My opponent claims that his "maps show a cooling tren[d]," however, as I have pointed out (and he has not defended) many of his graphs are selective in nature, and some are completely random. He has presented a graph of the heating of Thermocouples. He has presented graphs of only the north pole during some parts of the year. He has presented graphs of only selected parts of the atmosphere. He has presented graphs with selective 6 year ranges to show a cooling effect. And he has presented graphs with no sources, links, or indication that they are anything more than home-made excel charts.

9)Greenland

This is a Red Herring. The increasing thickness of Greenland (still, no source provided) is not a representation of the global temperatures.

10)Thermohaline Circulation (THC)

This is a new argument from my opponent, not brought up in his R1 or R2, but in his R3, so I am forced to fully address it here in my final round. The THC is driven by having really cold arctic waters, and really warm tropic waters [1]. The greater the difference, the greater the driving force of the THC, this is to create balance, as the cycle mixes the warm and the cold to create balance (thank you entropy).

It should also be noted that the heat transport of the THC [1], is a positive feedback loop (meaning, the warming that it may cause, will only lead to more warming). As glaciers cover less area, the albedo effect is lowered (since that is dependent upon surface area, not thickness), and so more energy is held by the earth from the sun.

11)Volcanos

This is also new this round and so will have to be dealt with. My opponent's graph claims that we only have one or two eruptions a year. This is gravely false, as the world sees about 50 – 60 eruptions every year [2]. It should also be noted that it is not important to how many volcanoes erupt, but the volume of dust that is cast into the sky [3]. The single eruption of Mt. Pinatubo released more ash and dust than hundreds of average eruptions.

12)Solar activity

This is yet another new argument (that makes 3 new arguments in R3 from my opponent), though I was honestly hoping for my opponent to bring this up from the beginning. The trends that my opponent is looking at are attempting to make predictions 50+ years into the future. There is, of course, no justification to believe that sun spots are going to be dropping in numbers, as his sources predict. As we see here [4], We are currently at the bottom of a sun spot cycle (which repeats every 12 or so years). This means two things. First, since the warming that we've seen has been lasting longer than 12 years, the warming itself is not caused by the sun spot cycle. And second, we will be expecting more warming as the sun heats up over the next 10 years.

Even if we look at the complete history of sun spots [5], we see nothing that indicates that the sizes of the peaks are going to be diminishing as my opponent's chart implies. The same goes for solar irradiance [same sources].

Let us recap all the points my opponent dropped.

His pictures were outliers and not accurate representations
Most of his graphs
Tree ring data
Most layers of atmosphere temps show warming (three of the four)
Some of his graphs are sized so you cannot see temp growth
Some of his graphs in general are dropped
Satellite readings match with gound readings (my opponent has simply said that they don't without providing a source, nor comprehensive graph of all the atmosphere)

In conclusion, my opponent has presented a bunch of graphs and pictures, but has done very little to nothing to source, backup or defend them.

My opponent stated, "Since we are talking about average global temperatures, the average temperature error is what matters. Just like a high temp or a low temp of a single day or night is not important, neither is a single day of the Heat Island effect. We are talking about annual trends."

The average temperature error is over 2°C, so this still points to the Heat Island effect corrupting data.

2.)

My opponent claims that the over 2°C error "is a per station error and it is only an estimate. It is also the case that the error range is + or -, so if one errors +2 degrees and another errors -2 degrees, they balance out. "

This is false, as the error is a (+) not a (-).

That is like saying you can stick a thermometer to the tail pipe of your car, and get a accurate reading, because the error would cancel it's self out. The error is only a (+) thus it does not cancel it's self out.

3.)

My opponent has made countless attacks on my graphs, even though I have already debunked these attacks he continues to use the same attacks on my graphs without recognizing that I have refuted these claims.

Also the Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% between May, 2008 and May, 2010 The blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, shows a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice.

The THC, although it mixes hot water with cold water, does not cancel it's self out. Yet again my opponent resorts to generalizations. Say the warm water is X and the cold water is Y. If X = +25 and Y = -15, than the result is +5. If the result is not cold enough it will melt the ice when it comes into contact with it.

6.)

My opponent claims my volcano chart is false because the numbers do not reflect volcanic activity, however the numbers on the side of the chart is not the number of Eruptions, but rather markers to help show the comparison.

as you said, "2001-10 shows no trend", thus we are not in a warming phase. Does the resolution mean nothing?

Pro's round 1 stated "In order to qualify, one must be able to extrapolate from the data that the average temperature will *CONTINUE TO INCREASE* over the next several decades (pending no action taken to prevent the current trend)...........*THE BoP* will be on [Pro] to *SHOW THE WARMING*, while [con] needs to either show cooling, or refute all evidence of warming."

The reason there is warming from the 1970's through 2000 is because the cooling dip after the 1940's. The reason we are warmer than the 1800's is because the little ice age ended in the mid to late 1800's.
Again he cropped the data, to manipulate the result.

Roylatham @ the stations are set up next to BBQs and on runways. This adds to the minor heat island effect, and skews up the data. The fact that any senttlment has a heat island effect would be an argument against surface temps, which is what pro presented for his only recent data.

There is ambiguity in what constitutes the "period" for warming or cooling. There has been general warming since the last ice age (20,000 BCE), cooling from the Holocene Optimum (2000 BCE) to the start of the Middle Ages, then warming, the cooling in the Little Ice Age, and general warming since around 1850. Even since 1850, there was cooling from the 30s through the 70s. There has been general warming since the 70s, although no trend since around 2000. I'm assuming that the period in question is since the 1970s to the present, where satellite data shows that there has been a warming trend. Pro cited the satellite data and quoted Christy on it, and I think that is good evidence.

Pro could have cited other climate proxies and historical data. Skeptical scientists are nearly universal in agreeing that there has been a trend of about 0.1 - 0.2 degree of warming since 1850. That's way short of climate crisis, but it is warming.

The land data is bogus because heat island effects occur even in small settlements, and most weather stations are in settlements of some kind. The few studies of very remote weather stations show general agreement with the satellite data -- slow warming, but no climate crisis.

We may well be heading into a period of cooling, but that's not what we are in now. Global warming alarmists argued in 2000 tt climate was a solved problem, that CO2 was the present dominant factor, and hence there was near-certainty of significant warming in the 2001-2010 decade. Those claims are absolutely dead. It is back to square one on climate modeling.

Reasons for voting decision: It doesn't matter who is right it matters who proves their point. Pro didn't make me believe his side. Con pointed out some really important things. One number being way off can make a big difference.

Reasons for voting decision: Despite having neither the first word nor the last word and one less round as well as the BOP, Pro was able to show that global warming occurs everywhere besides the polar regions, that the heat island effect was irrelevant when finding long term trends, that El-nino and La-nina balanced each other, and that surface and satellite temperatures support his position more than Con's. He shows that in the long term, global warming does occur and upholds his BOP. Splendid performance from Pro.

Reasons for voting decision: The satellite data is compelling. The debate was not about the cause of warming. There are supposed to be pictures embedded in Con's arguments, but they don't show on m computer.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't address the substance of the graphs, that is, did not explain why they were wrong, just made a blanket claim of the data being unreliable. (seems like a cop-out)

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Name calling. Misrepresentations.
Arguments: Pro was cogent. Con purports to believe that centimeters are a measure of volume, and that a change of two degrees C equals a change of 25 degrees F.
Sources: Cherry-picking data. Refusing to identify sources.